Article

Estimating Bubble Loading in Industrial

Flotation Cells
Mahdi Ostadrahimi 1, Khodakaram Gharibi 1, Ali Dehghani 1 and Saeed Farrokhpay 2,*
1 Faculty of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd 98195, Iran
[email protected] (M.O.); [email protected] (K.G.); [email protected] (A.D.)
2 GeoRessources Laboratory, University of Lorraine, 2 rue du Doyen Marcel Roubault, 54505 Vandoeuvre-

lès-Nancy, France
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33372744535

Received: 6 March 2019; Accepted: 4 April 2019; Published: 8 April 2019

Abstract: Bubble loading is the ratio of the weight of the solid particles to the bubble’s surface, and
it has an effective role in the flotation efficiency. This paper investigates bubble loading an industrial
processing circuit through considering the important role of the bubble diameter in calculating
bubble loading, and the effect of the aeration rate and frother dosage on the bubble diameter. The
ratio of the weight of solid particles to the bubble volume was estimated to be in the range of 8 to
24 g/L. Although increasing the aeration could result in increasing the weight of the particles
attached to the bubbles, the bubble loading was reduced by increasing the aeration rate due to its
impact on the bubble diameter and the percentage of bubble surface coverage. For example, when
the aeration rate was increased from 45 to 146 m3/h, the bubble loading decreased from 23 to 12 g/L.
By increasing the frother dosage from 70 to 150 mL/min, the bubble loading increased from 16 to 19
g/L.

Keywords: bubble loading; aeration rate; frother dosage; bubble diameter; flotation

1. Introduction
The structure and stability of the froth can greatly affect the concentrate grade and recovery in
the flotation process [1]. Parameters such as hydrophobicity, particle size distribution, amount and
type of frother and collector, temperature, pH, and soluble ions affect the structure and stability of
the froth [1–8]. King et al. [9] in 1974 studied the maximum bubble loading and they showed that the
shape and placement of particles could form a cumulative particle with a maximum bubble-carrying
capacity.
It has been reported that bubble diameter, particle size, particle density, particle shape, and the
geometric arrangement of particles have the greatest impact on the bubble loading [10]. In theory, if
the size and shape of particles are assumed to be similar and spherical, the maximum number of
particles (nmax) that can be connected to a bubble is calculated by Equation (1):

= π( ) (1)

where db and dp are the bubble and particle diameter, respectively. According to Equation (2), the
maximum bubble loading based on the ratio of the bubble mass to its volume is equal to:
π
= (2)

where λmax is the maximum bubble loading (g/cm3), and ρP is the mineral density (g/cm3).

Minerals 2019, 9, 222; doi:10.3390/min9040222 www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2019, 9, 222 2 of 11

It should be noted that in practice, only a fraction of the bubble surface is covered by particles,
and full coverage is not possible. Therefore, bubble loading can be calculated using Equation (3) [11]:
π
= (3)

where K is the fraction of bubble surface coverage with a layer of particles.

The bubble loading can be defined in terms of mass of the particles attached to the bubble
surface, as shown in Equation (4):

= (4)
6
where Bl is mass of the attached particles to the bubble surface (mg/mm2).
Bubble loading has been studied by many researchers [11–17]. Bradshaw [12] in 1996 estimated
the mass fraction of particles per area of the bubble as 0.082 mg/mm2 for pyrite. Yianatos [11] in 2008
reported the bubble loading in an industrial copper flotation cell as 26.5 g/L and 59.0 g/L (about 0.006
mg/mm2 and 0.010 mg/mm2). In recent studies, the bubble loading in column flotation of quartz has
been found to be in the range of 0.01 to 0.04 mg/mm2 [16,17]. A direct relationship between collector
dosage and the bubble loading, especially for large particles, has been also reported [18].
In this paper, the bubble loading was calculated based on the aeration rate and frother dosage
in an industrial mechanical flotation cell. Their effect on the bubble transport capacity was also
investigated. It is acknowledged that bubble loading in either laboratory or industrial machines has
been previously studied; however, in this study, a simple but practical relationship was applied to
find the effect of practical flotation parameters on the bubble loading. The effect of froth depth on
bubble loading has not been previously investigated, and it is targeted in the current work.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to measure the bubble loading and investigate the effect of operational parameters, tests
were conducted in the industrial flotation cells of the Gol-e-Gohar Iron Company (Kerman, Iran). In
this plant, PAX (potassium amyl xanthate) and Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) are used as collector
and frother, respectively. The collector dosage was 60 g/ton, and it was kept constant for different
tests throughout the study, while the frother dosage was varied. The flotation plant had two parallel
flotation circuits of Metso RCL10 and RCL30 cells. Each circuit consisted of four flotation cells with a
capacity of 10 m3, which were placed in series, and each circuit had four froth outputs. All the tests
were conducted in the first cell.

2.1. Test Conditions

The bubble loading depends on the bubble diameter and the characteristics of the connected
particles to the bubble; these factors are affected by various parameters. For example, bubble diameter
is influenced by aeration rate, frother dosage, and type [19], as well as solid% and particle size
distribution [20]. The aeration rate and frother dosage are the most important factors affecting the
bubble diameter. Due to the different conditions of the processing plant, experiments were designed
and conducted in two different blocks. The conditions and specifications of each block are given in
Table 1. The froth depths for blocks 1 and 2 were set at 5 cm and 30 cm, respectively.

Table 1. Statistical factorial design of the experiments for measuring the bubble diameter.

Frother Dosage Aeration Rate Feed

No. Block No. ton/h
mL/min m3/h %Fe %S
1 70 45 108 65.70 1.09
2 150 45 110 65.02 1.09
1
3 70 146 104 66.60 0.83
4 150 146 115 65.75 1.06
5 2 70 45 108 66.15 1.04
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 3 of 11

6 150 45 98 65.71 1.19

7 70 146 105 65.42 0.93
8 150 146 116 66.20 0.90

The position of bubble loading measurement in the flotation circuit is also schematically shown
in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The position of bubble loading measurement in the flotation circuit.

2.2. Measuring the Bubble Diameter

In order to determine the number of particles and bubbles, the diameter of the equivalent
bubbles and particles must be given to determine the capacity of the bubble carrier. There are several
methods for measuring bubble diameter and coalescence speed. The most common method for
determining the bubble size is using visual methods [21–23]; electrical resistivity tomography has
been also used to measure the bubble diameter and bubble loading [24]. In the visual method, images
are analyzed with video processing software [25]. Equation (5) was used to determine the diameter
of the equivalent bubble (Sauter mean diameter) or d32b [26]:
∑
= (5)
∑
where di is the bubble diameter and n is number of the bubbles.
For this purpose, a device was used as shown in Figure 2, and several pictures were taken using
a digital camera. The images were then analyzed using ImageJ software (an open source image
analysis available at https://imagej.net), and the Sauter diameters were calculated according to the
distribution of the bubble diameters for each test.

Figure 2. The imaging device to measure bubble diameter.

2.3. Bubble Loading

Minerals 2019, 9, 222 4 of 11

In order to determine the bubble carrying capacity, a device was fabricated according to Moyes
and Yianatos [11,27–29] (Figure 3). The procedure is such that the tank was initially filled with water,
and the nozzle of the device was about 10 cm below the froth–pulp intersection. After a certain time,
the air volume and particle mass inside the tank were measured. The equipment must have the
following features: (i) the sample of collected bubbles should represent the whole bubbles; (ii) no
particle should be removed from the bubble when it moves upwards in the riser; (iii) the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the collector machine should ensure that the particles or carrier gas
do not appear and also prevent the collection of entrainment particles; and (iv) it should be easily
used in an industrial environment.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. The direct measurement device for carrying the bubble (a) and its location in the flotation
cell (b).

2.4. Measurement of the Diameter and Density of Particles

The density of collected particles was calculated by assuming that they are spherical, and the
number of particles in each dimensional range was determined. The Sauter diameter was estimated
according to the experimental conditions.

2.5. Rate of Mass Transfer of Particles to the Froth Phase

The rate of mass transfer of particles to the froth phase was calculated using Equation (6):
= /1000 (6)
where B is the mass transfer rate of the connected particles to the bubbles (ton/h), and Qg is the
aeration rate (m3/h).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

A two-level factorial design [30,31] was applied to study the effect of flotation parameters on the
bubble loading. The analysis reveals the significance of each factor, as well as if there is any
interaction between these factors [31]. The conditions and specifications of the flotation feed for each
test are given in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the test conditions, the bubble loading (λB), bubble diameter (db), particle diameter (dp),
and solids density (ρp) were obtained. The fraction of the bubble surface covered by the particles (K),
the mass of solid particles carried by a bubble (mbp), as well as the number of bubbles entered in the
tank per minute (nb) were calculated as shown in Table 2. Sb is the bubble superficial surface (s−1).
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 5 of 11

Table 2. The calculated froth recovery values based on the mass and grade of samples.

No. db (mm) dp (μm) p (g/cm3) λB (g/L) Bl (mg/mm2) K (%) mpb (mg) Sb (s−1)
1 0.97 43 3.84 20.82 0.0034 3.61 0.012 22.33
2 0.74 40 3.78 22.05 0.0027 2.49 0.005 29.28
3 1.91 53 3.97 8.40 0.0027 3.02 0.020 36.80
4 1.68 51 3.96 9.74 0.0027 2.48 0.019 41.84
5 0.90 44 3.84 23.92 0.0036 3.61 0.012 24.07
6 0.72 40 3.78 26.34 0.0032 2.49 0.006 30.09
7 1.95 54 4.04 13.26 0.0043 4.52 0.045 36.05
8 1.37 50 3.91 16.02 0.0037 3.08 0.020 51.31

3.1. The Effect of Parameters on the Bubble Diameter

The P value for each factor was low, and the correlation coefficient was desirable. When the
aeration rate rises from 45 m3/h to 146 m3/h, the bubble diameter was between 0.8–1.7 mm, and when
the frother dosage was doubled, the bubble diameter decreased by 21%. Therefore, increasing the
frother dosage resulted in reducing the bubble diameter (Figure 4). A two-level factorial design method
was used to evaluate the correlation throughout this study, as explained earlier in this paper.

1.7

1.5
dB (mm)

1.3

1.1

Frother
0.9
Aeration
0.7
low high

Figure 4. Effect of frother dosage and aeration rate on the bubble size (frother dosage for low and high
are 70 mL/min and 150 mL/min, and the aeration rate for low and high are 45 m3/h and 146 m3/h; see
Table 1).

Increasing the aeration rate results in an enhanced gas superficial velocity, which in turn causes
the bubble diameter to increase [18,22]. In fact, the frother reduces the surface tension, and
consequently, it reduces the bubble coalescence, which can be a reason for the reduction of the bubble
size in the lower pulp–froth interface in the current study [25].

3.2. Effect of Operational Parameters on the Bubble Superficial Surface

The statistical results show that the bubble superficial surface per cell surface increases by
increasing the frother dosage or aeration rate (Figure 5). The maximum bubble superficial surface for
the aeration rate of 146 m3/h and frother dosage of 150 mL/min are 41.8 s−1 and 51.3 s−1, for Blocks 1
and 2, respectively. Decreasing the aeration or increasing the frother dosage both reduces the bubble
diameter, resulting in a higher bubble superficial surface [32]. A difference of almost 10 s−1 in the
bubble surface area flux as a result of changing the froth depth is observed. The reason for this
difference is not clear, but it is known that the bubble diameter is inversely related to the pressure.
Therefore, in high froth depth, the pressure is probably higher and consequently, the bubble diameter
reduces. This needs to be investigated further.
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 6 of 11

45

40
Sb (g-1)

35

30
Frother
Aeration
25
low high
Figure 5. Effect of aeration rate and frother dosage on the bubble superficial surface (frother dosage
for low and high are 70 mL/min and 150 mL/min, and the aeration rate for low and high are 45 m3/h
and 146 m3/h; see Table 1).

3.3. The Diameter and Density of the Solid Particles

The results of variance analysis (ANOVA) show that the aeration rate and frother dosage have
a logical relation with the solid particles’ diameter and density. According to the results (Figure 6),
increasing the aeration rate, as well as decreasing the frother dosage, both result in enhancing the
bubble size. It should be noted that when the bubble diameter increases from 0.75 mm to about 2 mm,
the density also increases from 0.15 to 0.22 mg/mm2, so the bubble diameter is directly related to the
diameter and density of the transported particles, as shown in Figure 7.
0.22

0.21

0.2
.dp(mg/mm2

0.19

0.18

0.17
Frother
0.16
Aeration
0.15
low high

Figure 6. Effect of frother dosage and aeration rate on the solid density surface (frother dosage for
low and high are 70 mL/min and 150 mL/min, and the aeration rate for low and high are 45 m3/h and
146 m3/h; see Table 1).
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 7 of 11

0.22

0.21

0.2
ˣdp (mg/mm2)

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14
0.5 1 1.5 2
db (mm)

Figure 7. Effect of bubble diameter on the density of solid particles.

3.4. Bubble Loading

According to the ANOVA results, the effect of tested parameters in the confidence level of 95%
is statistically significant. The results indicated that the bubble loading decreases when increasing the
aeration rate, but it increases when increasing the frother dosage (Figure 8). Regarding the aeration
rate, it can be seen that increasing the aeration rate results in decreasing the bubble surface coverage
(Figure 9). Therefore, increasing the aeration rate leads to decreasing the bubble loading.
Moreover, Figure 9 shows that by increasing the aeration rate and frother dosage at high froth
depths, the f bubble surface coverage only slightly changes. This may be due to the drop back
phenomenon in the high-froth depths (Block 2), as the reattachment of particles to the bubble
increases [3] and consequently, the bubble surface coverage slightly changes.

24

22
Bubble loading (g/L)

20

18

16

14
Frother
12
Aeration
10
low high

Figure 8. Effect of frother dosage and amount of aeration rate on the bubble loading surface (frother
dosage for low and high are 70 mL/min and 150 mL/min, and aeration rate for low and high are 45
m3/h and 146 m3/h; see Table 1).
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 8 of 11

4.20

3.80

3.40
K%

3.00
K (Block1,Frother70ml/min)
K (Block1,Frother150ml/min)
2.60
K (Block2,Frother70ml/min)
K (Block2,Frother150ml/min)
2.20
45 146
Aeration (m3/h)

Figure 9. Effect of aeration rate on the percentage of bubble surface coverage.

Figure 10 shows that increasing bubble diameter increases the mass of particles attached to the
bubbles, but the ratio of the weight of these particles to the bubble surface area does not necessarily
increase. However, for the same particle size, the active surface area of large bubbles that allows the
particles to attach is more than that of the small bubbles [33].

0.06 0.0050
Particles mass for each bubble

0.0045
Particle mass per bubble surface

0.05
0.0040
0.0035
0.04
(mg)

0.0030
(g/dm2)

0.03 0.0025
0.0020
mpb (Block1)
0.02
mpb (Block2) 0.0015

Bl (Block1) 0.0010
0.01
Bl (Block2) 0.0005
0 0.0000
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Bubble diameter (mm)

Figure 10. Effect of bubble diameter on the mass of attached particles to the bubbles and its ratio to
the bubble surface.

3.5. Mass Transfer Rate of Particles Attached to the Froth Phase

Figure 11 shows that the rate of particle mass transfer to the froth phase is directly related to the
aeration rate, even though the bubble loading is inversely proportional to the aeration rate.
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 9 of 11

frother 70ml/min (Block1) frother 70ml/min (Block2)

2.5 frother 150ml/min (Block1) frother 150ml/min (Block2)

2.25

2
B (ton/h)

1.75

1.5

1.25

0.75
45 Qg (m3/h) 146

Figure 11. Effect of aeration rate on the mass transfer rate of particles to the froth phase. Commented [M1]: mL
注意上面留白
According to Figure 11, the mass of particles attached to the bubbles that enter the froth phase
increases by increasing the frother dosage (due to the higher bubble load). It must be noted that by
increasing the frother dosage and the aeration rate at high froth depth (block 2), the mass transfer
rate of particles attached to the bubbles that enter the froth phase is higher compared to the low froth
depth (block 1).

4. Conclusion
The bubble loading is directly related to the amount of attached solid particles to the bubbles. It
has also an inverse relationship with the bubble diameter, which is influenced by various factors,
including aeration rate and frother dosage. The results of this study show that the bubble loading
decreases with increasing the aeration rate or frother dosage, although the former has a more
significant effect. When the aeration rate decreases from 146 m3/h to 45 m3/h, the bubble loading
changes to approximately double. The mass of attached particles to the bubble increases with
increasing the bubble diameter, but the ratio of particle mass to the bubble surface (bubble loading)
is not statistically significant, and its maximum value was found to be 0.004 mg/mm2. The results also
show that approximately 2.5% of the bubble’s surface is covered with particles, which it decreases by
increasing the aeration rate.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, M.O.; Investigation, M.O.; Methodology, M.O.; Project administration,
K.G.; Supervision, K.G., A.D. and S.F.; Writing—original draft, M.O.; Writing—review & editing, A.D. and S.F.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Farrokhpay, S. The significance of froth stability in mineral flotation—A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.
2001, 166, 1–7.
2. Farrokhpay, S., Zanin. M. An investigation into the effect of water quality on froth stability. Adv. Powder
Technol. 2012, 23, 493–497.
3. Ata, S. Phenomena in the froth phase of flotation—A review. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2012, 102–103, 1–12.
4. Xing, Y.; Gui, X.; Cao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xu, M.; Li, C. Effect of compound collector and blending frother on
froth stability and flotation performance of oxidized coal. Powder Technol. 2017, 305, 166–173.
5. Norori-McCormac, A.; Brito-Parada, P.R.; Hadler, K.; Cole, K.; Cilliers, J.J. The effect of particle size
distribution on froth stability in flotation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2017, 184, 240–247
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 10 of 11

6. Achaye, I. Effect of Particle Properties on Froth Stability. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town,
South Africa, 2017.
7. Cilek, E.C.; Uysal, K. Froth stabilization using nanoparticles in mineral flotation. Physicochem. Probl. Miner.
Process. 2018, 54, 878–889.
8. Ata, S. The role of frother on the detachment of particles from bubbles. Miner. Eng. 2011, 24, 476–478.
9. King, R.P.; Hatton, T.A.; Hulbert, D.G. Bubble loading during flotation. Trans. Inst. Mining Metall. 1974, 83,
112–115.
10. Gallegos-Acevedo, P.M.; Pérez-Garibay, R.; Uribe-Salas, A. Maximum bubble loads: Experimental
measurement vs. analytical estimation. Miner. Eng. 2006, 19, 12–18.
11. Yianatos, J.B.; Moys, M.H.; Contreras, F.; Villanueva, A. Froth recovery of industrial flotation cells. Miner.
Eng. 2008, 21, 817– 825.
12. Bradshaw, D.J.; Connor, C.T. Measurement of the sub-process of bubble loading in flotation. Miner. Eng.
1996, 9, 443–448.
13. Alexander, D.J.; Franzidis, J.P.; Manlapig, E.V. Froth recovery measurement in plant scale flotation cells.
Miner. Eng. 2003, 16, 1197–1203.
14. Moys, M.H.; Yianatos, J.; Larenas, J. Measurement of particle loading on bubbles in the flotation process.
Miner. Eng. 2010, 23, 131–136.
15. Seaman, D.R.; Franzidis, J.P.; Manlapig, E.V. Bubble load measurement in the pulp zone of industrial
flotation machines—A new device for determining the froth recovery of attached particles. Int. J. Miner.
Process. 2004, 74, 1–13.
16. Hemmati, C.M.; Abdollahy, M.; Khalesi, M.R. Bubble loading measurement in a continuous flotation
column. Miner. Eng. 2016, 85, 49–54.
17. Eskanlou, A.; Khalesi, M.R.; Abdollahy, M.; Hemmati, C.M. Interactional effects of bubble size, particle
size, and collector dosage on bubble loading in column flotation. J. Min. Environ. 2018, 9, 107–116.
18. Gorain, B.; Franzidis, J.P.; Manlapig, E.V. Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate in an
industrial scale flotation cell. Part 1: Effect on bubble size distribution. Miner. Eng. 1995, 8, 615–635.
19. Maurice, C.; Fuerstenau, G.J.; Jameson, Roe-Hoan, Y. Froth Flotation: A Century of Innovation. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 2007.
20. Vinnett, L.; Yianatos, J.; Alvarez, M. Gas dispersion measurements in mechanical flotation cells-Industrial
experience in Chilean concentrators. Miner. Eng. 2014, 57, 12–15.
21. Kaartinen, J.; Hätönen, J.; Hyötyniemi, H.; Miettunen, J. Machine-vision-based control of zinc flotation—A
case study. Control Eng. Pract. 2006, 14, 1455–1466.
22. Grau, R.A.; Heiskanen, K. Visual technique for measuring bubble size in flotation machines. Miner. Eng.
2002, 15, 507–513.
23. Morar, S.H. The Use of Machine Vision to Describe and Evaluate Froth Phase Behaviour and Performance
in Mineral Flotation Systems. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010.
24. Nissinen, N.; Lehikoinen, A.; Mononen, M.; Lähteenmäki, S.; Vauhkonen, M. Estimation of the bubble size
and bubble loading in a flotation froth using electrical resistance tomography. Miner. Eng. 2014, 69, 1–12.
25. Gorain, B.; Oravainen, H.; Allenius, H.; Peaker, R.; Weber, A.; Tracyzk, F. Mechanical froth flotation cells,
in Froth Flotation a Century of Innovation; Fuerstenau, M.C., Jameson, G.J., Yoon, Eds.; Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 2007; pp. 637-779.
26. Gallegos-Acevedo, P.M.; Pérez-Garibay, R.; Uribe-Salas, A.; Nava-Alonso, F. Bubble load estimation in the
froth zone to predict the concentrate mass flow rate of solids in column flotation. Miner. Eng. 2007, 20, 1210–
1217.
27. Moys, M.H.; Yianatos, J.B.; Larenas, J. Measurement of particle loading on bubbles in the flotation process.
Miner. Eng. 2010, 23, 131–136.
28. Bhondayi, C.; Moys, M.H. Determination of sampling pipe (riser) diameter for a flotation bubble load
measuring device. Miner. Eng. 2011, 24, 1664–1676.
29. Yianatos, J.; Vinnett, L.; Carrasco, C.; Alvarez-Silva, M. Effect of entrainment in bubble load measurement
on froth recovery estimation at industrial scale. Miner. Eng. 2015, 72, 31–35.
30. Napier-Munn, T. Statistical Methods for Mineral Engineers: How to Design Experiments and Analyse Data,
JKMRC: Indooroopilly, Australia, 2014.
31. Li., C.; Runge, K.; Shi, F.; Farrokhpay, S. Effect of flotation conditions on froth rheology. Powder Technol.
2018, 340, 537–542.
Minerals 2019, 9, 222 11 of 11

32. Gupta, A.; Yan. D.S. Mineral Processing Design and Operations. Imprint, Elsevier Science: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2016.
33. Ralston, J.; Fornasiero, D.; Hayes, R. Bubble- particle attachment and detachment in flotation. Int. J. Miner.
Process. 1999, 56, 133-164.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).